Not agreed - with the changes in r10020 the <check> directive now is simply ignored (tested by referring to a non-existent script), the same way as it was in earlier revisions in osxapp-enabled builds (see comment #2).
IMHO either this directive is removed from the extensions that have it (and remove related the related code), or <check> must be properly fixed. Possibly, since this is a regression in 0.48, the decision to address bug #505107 (win32-only) by cd'ing into the user extension directory (on all platforms) before launching the external process for a script file [1] broke parts of 'Script::check()' [2] in 'src/extension/impementation/script.cpp'.
> tags: added: backport-proposed
Not agreed - with the changes in r10020 the <check> directive now is simply ignored (tested by referring to a non-existent script), the same way as it was in earlier revisions in osxapp-enabled builds (see comment #2).
IMHO either this directive is removed from the extensions that have it (and remove related the related code), or <check> must be properly fixed. Possibly, since this is a regression in 0.48, the decision to address bug #505107 (win32-only) by cd'ing into the user extension directory (on all platforms) before launching the external process for a script file [1] broke parts of 'Script::check()' [2] in 'src/extension/ impementation/ script. cpp'.
[1] <https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/inkscape/ +bug/551433/ comments/ 7> bazaar. launchpad. net/~inkscape. dev/inkscape/ trunk/annotate/ head:/src/ extension/ implementation/ script. cpp#L377>
[2] <http://